Self Editor

Forum: pol
Page 2895
Subject: Hate crimes bill

Posted by: Perm Dude - [4645347] Fri, May 04, 2007, 12:12

There's been some discussion here and there on the hate crimes bill that Bush is planning to veto. The bill is purporting to add homosexuality to the list of groups protected (though there is a little more than that--the bill does appear to expand the law as well in this area, taking over state laws and so on).

Bush appears to be against this for "federalist" reasons and that's fine. But I don't think that he would sign this anyway, and the expansion of the law is a big cover. I would like to see the Dems pass a bill without expanding the law--simply adding "sexual preference" to the list--and see what Bush does.

I'm on record as being against hate crimes. I don't think thoughts, no matter how repulsive, should be punished. Actions? Sure. But not thoughts.

And I think we really have to question whether this law actually prevents any crime at all. If not, we shouldn't be doing it. My libertarian streak is saying that the government simply shouldn't go there.

Perm Dude
ID: 4645347
Fri, May 04, 2007, 12:20

On gay rights, I find myself agreeing with Andrew Sullivan, who seems to be posting pitch-perfect thoughts on this issue.

This one, on gay couple legislation, really nails it. Call them "civil unions" if you want. But don't punish those people for simply wanting a stable life.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, May 04, 2007, 12:46

I don't think thoughts, no matter how repulsive, should be punished. Actions? Sure. But not thoughts.

We prosecute cases differently based on the supposed intent of the perp all the time.

Murder and other violent crimes usually carry a harsher penalty if the state can convince a jury that the act was premeditated. It depends on no more that a case for what the defendant must have been thinking prior to the the attack.

I could be wrong, but I also believe that in many cases, possession of at least certain types of drugs can lead to an 'intent to sell' or 'intent to distribute' charge based entirely on how the drugs are packaged.

Toral
ID: 52621719
Fri, May 04, 2007, 12:51

I'm on record as being against hate crimes. I don't think thoughts, no matter how repulsive, should be punished.

Motive is and has always been an important factor in criminal sentencing.

Torak

Perm Dude
ID: 4645347
Fri, May 04, 2007, 12:53

But that is all coming from an action---intention to commit comes from the clear actions both in the physical evidence of the packaging (for instance) and in the later (and further) action of drug sales.

Intent to commit murder also is an action, not a thought.

Hateful thought, on the other hand, is a crime with an additional penalty on top of the action of the crime.

Love to get MBJ's take on this.

Razor
ID: 5455410
Fri, May 04, 2007, 12:55

Add me to the list of liberals against hate crime legislation as well.

Perm Dude
ID: 4645347
Fri, May 04, 2007, 12:55

That's a good point, Toral. But does having the motive itself get the criminal an additional sentence? It seems to me that we punish the action, and motive helps solve the crime and provide proof of wrongdoing.

still thinking this through.

Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Fri, May 04, 2007, 13:02

I'm against crime legislation in general and hate crime laws in particular :)

katietx
ID: 243562819
Fri, May 04, 2007, 13:10

SZ - so you are advocating no crime legislation? If all crime laws were wiped off the books, would that not lead to anarchy?

Agree with PD that I, as well, am thinking this through.

Toral
ID: 52621719
Fri, May 04, 2007, 13:20

But does having the motive itself get the criminal an additional sentence?

Sometimes yes. You will get a longer sentence if you commit murder for hire, to ensure freedom from prosecution for a crime, or to take pleasure in the victim's suffering and death than you will if you commit a garden variety murder; and more for a garden variety murder than if you murder because, let us say, the victim is an incurably ill loved one whose horrible pain and suffering you wish to end.

Or so I understand. If mbj or Seattle Zen assure me otherwise I will take their word for it.

Toral

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, May 04, 2007, 13:35

I'm ok with the idea as long as the standards are written strictly enough.

If some guy leaves a bar and severely assaults a black man and at the trial other patrons from the pub testify that the defendant invited them to go out and find some n*****s and f**k them up, I'm just fine with a harsher penalty than he might otherwise get.

Toral
ID: 52621719
Fri, May 04, 2007, 13:39

I'm ok with the idea as long as the standards are written strictly enough.

I agree with that and this is my only concern with hate crimes legislation. It should be required that the motivation be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, like the elements of the offence itself.

Toral

Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Fri, May 04, 2007, 13:45

If all crime laws were wiped off the books, would that not lead to anarchy?

It would lead me right out of a job!

All sorts of felonies take motivation into consideration. Toral gives apt examples.

I just do not care for the idea that "hate", which is really hard to define and prove -it appeals to juror prejudices - can make such a huge difference in similar circumstances.

Example A: Group of young men driving around town see Bobby, whom they don't like. They jump out and beat him. Unless they beat him unconscious or break a bone, in WA that's a gross misdemeanor.

Example B: Group of young men driving around town see Bobby, whom they don't like and who is Black. They jump out and beat him. Prosecutors now have the ability to charge him with a "hate crime" making it easier to hold them in jail at a higher bail, gaining a lot more leverage to exact a plea because the hate crime is a felony. Lots of cases get charged initially as felonies that end up pleading out as misdemeanors. A good guy like MBJ doesn't operate like this, but plenty of others do.

If a group of men admit to beating someone because they are gay, or disabled, or Muslim, or Black, I have no qualms with the judge having the ability of hearing this at a sentencing hearing and being allowed to take that into account when handing out a sentence, I just don't like the idea of it being its own crime.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, May 04, 2007, 13:50

I'd be ok with working it into sentencing guidlines rather than have it be its own crime.

Still requires strict standards.

Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Fri, May 04, 2007, 15:39

I think what makes "hate crime" legislation a little different (and dangerous and despicable) is that it singles out motive, as opposed to intent as an element of the crime. Generally, motive is not something that need be proven to prosecute a case.

Take Toral's "murder for hire" (although, I didn't know it was a seprate crime, anywhere) example. The state has to prove "intent", not motive. They're different things.

Motive is something I might like to present to a jury as relevant to guilt or intent or something I might present to let them know just how vile the defendant's acts were; but it's never a required element. With a "hate crime", it becomes the required element.

bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Fri, May 04, 2007, 17:03

Not to nit pick SZ, but re your examples in 12 - based on just the info you provide in B, I don't believe a prosecutor is going to charge anyone with a hate crime. A white on black assault is insufficient on its own to charge a defendant with a hate crime enhancement. Further evidence would need to be presented which would show that a major factor motivating the suspect to commit this crime was BECAUSE the victim was black. If the suspect committed the assualt just because he did not like the victim, this would be insufficient to add the enhancement, at least in my neck of the woods.

As you say, prosecutors have a lot of discretion, but that holds true with just about every case they may file.

Toral
ID: 52621719
Fri, May 04, 2007, 17:05

I would agree with SZ that the same action -- e.g., beating someone up -- should not be a felony under "hate crime" legislation if it would only be a misdemeanour otherwise. Probably there should not be a separate crime, as SZ and MITH suggest, but only a requirement that a judge consider the proven "hate motive" in sentencing. (It would have to be required, not merely allowed, or the law would be useless.)

I need to know more about how existing hate crimes legislation works. I'm going to avoid discussion of the bill currently under consideration as it would allow federal prosecution where no federal prosecution would otherwise be possible. States which have a hate crimes law: if there is an assault, and a 'hate motive' is suspected, is the accused charged just with assault, or with two crimes, assault and assault-as-hate-crime? If the latter is the case, I would assume that there would be one trial, that the prosecution would have to introduce evidence of the "hate motive" to get a conviction on the second count, that if it failed to prove 'hate motive' the accused would be convicted of assault and acquitted of 'hate crime' assault. So while making motive an element of a crime is extremely unusual in criminal law, I can't see why it would creates a special problem. I can't see, per mbj, why it is "dangerous and despicable".

In the murder for hire example, I wasn't thinking of it as a separate crime from murder. I was suggesting that, once murder is proved in the usual way, the motive can be considered in sentencing and is going to lead to a longer sentence.

I originally posted just to disagree with the common argument that considering hate motives makes the state a punisher of thoughts not actions in a way that is foreign to the criminal law. It's not foreign in sentencing. Further, to me, it's not 'punishing thoughts'; it's taking thoughts into account in punishing actions.

But after doing a little research, I suppose the way in which hate crime legislation might be considered dangerous on freedom-of-expression type grounds is one mentioned by Dale Carpenter, criticizing a column in the Advocate :

While the column claims that nobody has ever been prosecuted for a mere "thought crime," that is an evasion of the danger these laws may present and of the objections that have been lodged against them. Of course, mere thought is not criminalized. One must commit an underlying crime before a hate-crimes law comes into play. But the potential problem is that evidence of what one thinks about a group may be introduced to prove a hate crime eligible for federal prosecution even if, in fact, it didn't motivate the crime. I'm not personally very discomforted by this prospect since inquiry into motive is common in the law. I'm also not aware of much real danger to the First Amendment in the 40 years of hate-crimes prosecution so far. But the column avoids the issue rather than confronting it.

Would evidence that a white attacker of a black was a Klan member be considered admissible and probative? Evidence that the attacker of a gay was a member of Fred Phelps' church? That he has kept a diary where he writes about his hatred for various groups?

I see the objections to this, which is why I demand that the "hate motive" be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think evidence like the above would contribute much toward proving that the specific assault on Bobby who is black was motivated by hate. Perhaps I am placing too much trust in judges and juries.

Toral

Perm Dude
ID: 4645347
Fri, May 04, 2007, 20:30

Some of the legal arguments behind the veto.

As the ever-expanding Commerce Clause raises its head, again...

Doug
ID: 422281412
Fri, May 04, 2007, 23:52

Interesting discussion on the points of whether it should be a separate crime or a sentencing guideline, etc... but in this particular case isn't this actually more about the state vs. federal issue?

Assuming so, connecting it to the Commerce Clause seems... sketchy... as I think PD was implying if I take his tone correctly. Seems a bit like we're stretching that clause for unintended purposes. Furthermore, it would seem that this would actually be a weaker law at the Federal level, as not only do you have to prove the crime and that it was motivated by one of these restricted forms of hate, but ALSO prove that it in some way pertains to interstate or foreign commerce. Basically, one more technicality for someone to get off on. Why set it up any more precariously than necessary?

Of course, as I understand it (and I have no legal training so please correct me if I'm wrong) but even if this passed states could still pass their own hate crime laws to cover "non-commerce" situations, no? But it's possible they'd be less inclined to do so thinking the Feds already have it covered, etc.

Is the motivation for making a law Federal the feeling that some states wouldn't pass their own hate crime laws if left to their own devices? That is, is it basically a power play by the Feds, and are there other motivations for it besides fear of "non-hate-law-passing-states"?

Dunno. Just thinking out loud. :)

Mötley Crüe
Dude
ID: 439372011
Sat, May 05, 2007, 00:44

Did anyone else read PD's post [0] in the following way?

I personally think 'hate crime' legislation is bunk.

I am guessing George Bush does, too. I'd like to see the Democratic Congress force him to admit to it.

And then my question (if I have an accurate portrayal in mind) is why? Are you going to undress him for it, PD? I get the sense you are. Maybe I'm off base here.

My opinion is that political correctness has absolutely been responsible for these types of considerations. Hate crimes are almost a logical extension of affirmative action. They're definitely in the same family tree of philosophical thought. However, it's my belief that if guilt is established, and that a motive based on discriminatory behavior can be shown, that ought to be considered as an exacerbating circumstance when sentencing time comes around.

Doug
ID: 422281412
Sat, May 05, 2007, 01:07

Would relegating the hate motive to a factor in sentencing (as opposed to the current status as a separate crime) basically take the determination of the hate motive out of the hands of the jury and put it into the hands of the judge? If so, would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing?

Perm Dude
ID: 4645347
Sat, May 05, 2007, 02:09

MC: I think that Bush should be forced to convey his real reasons for being against the bill. I suspect, as Andrew Sullivan does in my first link in post #1, that the real reason he is against the bill has nothing to do with the federalist reasons. Money quote:

...the one truly incoherent position is that hate crimes laws are fine for all targeted groups except gays. Gays are among the most common victims of hate crimes, and straight people are also targeted for being gay even when they're not. If you're going to buy the whole concept of hate crimes, it makes no sense to exclude gays - none. Notice we need no discussion of the morality or otherwise of homosexuality. All that is being punished is the perception of someone else's identity. A straight, evangelical married man could have recourse if he was bashed because someone merely perceived him to be gay. A celibate gay man in reparative therapy could have recourse as well. So no serious moral argument can be made to distinguish the gay victims of hate crimes from other victims.

My point about Bush was to pull away the fig leaf to see if the bias exists or not. As President, Bush's position on this needs to be clear and he needs to convey his argument in light of that clear position.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, May 06, 2007, 10:53

Doug

In some states juries decide sentencing.

Doug
ID: 422281412
Sun, May 06, 2007, 17:15

I see... so in some states it would change who decides the hate motive, others it wouldn't. Is it just a handful of states, or are we talking a good 10-20, or...? I tried a google search or two but couldn't find a breakdown of which states used which system. Just curious.

Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 00:28

The natural consequences of hate crime legislation

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 15:06

I read all the posts above including PD's points in the original post. I think we are missing one of the most important reasons for the "hate crime" law in the first place.

It's similar to some of the issues with segregation and crime on blacks in the south in the 60's.

Crimes were being committed against people because of race and being treated differently, or ignored in the south, solely because of the race of the victim. This also took place in regions of the north too but the south was the obvious target.

Similarly there are still cases in some "redneck" jurisdictions where crimes against homosexuals are treated differently, sentenced differently. "Oh they just beat up a fag"...chuckle.

The purpose of making it a Federal hate crime is to say to the Redneck jurisdiction, this is how this crime will be treated because you are turning a blind eye because of the victim's sexual preference.

No one in this thread has addressed that issue.

That's the primary reason we need a seperate law for this crime, or any crime that is not being properly punished because of prejudiced attitudes in a particular jurisdiction.

In a free, fair society, we cannot stand by and watch this injustice take place.

Boldwin
ID: 180561421
Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 08:21

Nevertheless, mindreading should not be treated as if it were a valid tool for juries. Considering it isn't currently possible. If we are going that road let's just start convicting people because their palms say they are going to commit a crime, nevermind that palmreading doesn't work, there is a perceived need for preventative prosecution.

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 12:46

mindreading should not be treated as if it were a valid tool for juries

Agreed. If mindreading were always required to determine whether a crime's motive were racist or a some other similar bias, I'd oppose the notion of hate crimes all together.

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 13:36

Right, I think sometimes hate crimes are far more overt than what would be involved with mind-reading. Nerve's post has a great valid point.

Perm Dude
ID: 3045168
Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 13:41

It isn't about the mind reading (although all hate crimes legislation, to some degree, involves discerning what is in someone's mind and punishing them accordingly).

When laws aren't being followed the response isn't to add more crimes to the same act which is being ignored. If, indeed, "Redneck jurisdiction" isn't prosecuting crimes then adding another crime won't make them do what they should. And, as noted, "hate crime" legislation has all sorts of unintended consequences. Which is what you might expect when you start legislating emotions.

bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 14:05

In Calif at least, hate crimes are basically enhancements to whatever else a particular crime may have occurred.

Mind reading in no way factors into whether a hate crime has taken place, any more than mind reading is a factor when motive and intent are considered as part of what constitutes a particular crime. And, motive and intent are factors that are considered in just about every criminal incident.

Establishing what was on the mind of a suspect during a crime is fundemental in determining the seriousness of what he or she has done, but this is established by what has actually taken place, what the suspect has actually done and said.

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 14:16

legislating emotions

It shouldn't necessarily have to come to that. I'll stick with the example I offered in post 10.

Perm Dude
ID: 3045168
Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 14:28

Well, I've got nothing new to add either. My link in #24 shows the consequences of legislating emotion (it is, after all, hate crime legislation). A natural outgrowth of this is speech codes, in which merely speaking in a forbidden way is subject to legal penalties.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 16:30

PD the hate crime laws I'm referencing have nothing to do with speech.

An example would be a hate crime law that makes it a crime to assault someone based on race or sexual preference. The purpose would be to enforce the punishment of these acts in jurisdictions that are prejudice against the victim class.

A hate crime law isn't a specific thing.

There are different types.

The article you linked to and the examples I gave are two completely different laws.

You can like one and dislike the other.

If a particular city isn't prosecuting acts of violence against a victim because they are gay or black for example, do you not agree as a nation we should step in and take action?

I am specifically referencing physical acts of violence not speech.

Hate laws come in many varieties.

Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 17:02

An example would be a hate crime law that makes it a crime to assault someone based on race or sexual preference

That's already against the law in every US jurisdiction, nerve. What is it that the "nerve hatecrime" would outlaw that isn't already criminal?

Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 17:07

Boldwin
ID: 120301616
Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 17:37

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 17:45

I like it better when you post as Boldwin. Better reflects your questionable assertions; such as Nerveclinic's preference for liberal priveleges and poor rural southerners not already greatly benefitting from them.

Boldwin
ID: 120301616
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 02:01

Granted Nerve is usually more of a libertarian but he's a left leaning libertarian who is taking the liberal side on this one.

Baldwin, Boldwin...just so long as you recognise the operative part Win.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 05:54

Let's move the poor abused rednecks to the top of the 'most favored victims' list and throw the book at Nerve. Hey this mindreading prosecution stuff is fun when you get to chose the target. I guess Nerve is sure that will always be a liberal privilege.

Baldwin, if there was a jurisdiction in this country, where rednecks were being beaten up, specifically because they were red necks, and the crimes were being ignored or under sentenced based on a prejudice against rednecks, yes I would favor including red necks in a hate crime bill.

You know as well as I this isn't reality but I promise I will have an open mind to adding them to the list if you can show me they are being treated in a similar manner.

Given the vitriol, combative, frankly redneck postings you've made against homosexuals over the years I clearly wouldn't expect you to "get" this one.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 06:04

Let's move the poor abused rednecks to the top of the 'most favored victims' list and throw the book at Nerve.

What kind of an asinine statement is that anyway, it has nothing to do with any of my posts.

I've never beaten anyone up let alone targeted a redneck so how would you throw the book at me?

Sometimes your posts are so childishly nonsensical it boggles the mind. Your like a little child with that analogy.

Let's be honest Baldwin, you could never support a law that attempted to prevent the physical violence against a group you despise...homosexuals.

Now if Christians were being beaten up in a Muslim neighborhood, the spit would be flying from your mouth with rage.

I believe this is called "Christian Ethics"?

No insult intended to the Christians on the board with an open mind.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 06:25

MBJ That's already against the law in every US jurisdiction, nerve. What is it that the "nerve hatecrime" would outlaw that isn't already criminal?

Come on MBJ, being against the law and being properly prosecuted have a history in our country of not always being the same. You of all people here should be aware of that.

I don't understand what wasn't clear to you in post 25. Being against the law and being enforced by rednecks is sometimes 2 different things.

There were things in the 60's that were against the law, hanging "Negroes" from trees without a trial for instance, but some jurisdictions simply couldn't seem to prosecute these crimes (possibly because the judge was involved with the hanging). In cases like that the Fed's would be expected to step in.

Today a homosexual or an African American getting beaten up simply because he is gay or black in a small redneck town may not see the perpetrators get prosecuted or sentenced the same way as they might if they committed the crime against a straight or white person.

That's the America I see...if you don't, then I understand why you would be against violence based hate crimes. (not speech)

The theory is the "hate crime" bill (Violence specifically) puts more teeth in the Feds ability to go after situations where prosecutions are not being handled appropriately.

This type of law would allow the Fed's to say, you didn't prosecute this case properly to the jurisdiction based on clear prejudice.

I understand an open minded person could still disagree that a special law would be needed.

I hadn't seen the perspective posted yet that I mentioned in post 25 so I laid it out there.

I didn't realize I would generate so many smart ass responses but then I haven't been posting much in these type of political arguments lately.

If you still don't agree with the premise, that's your call.

Clearly I wouldn't expect Baldwin to given his own prejudices.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 06:29

Also, nerve, it's pretty funny that in post your post #25 you continually refer to a derogatory term which was originated by the English to refer to a disfavored minority class in a post in which you think your instructing others on prejudice. LOL

I reread the post 3 times and have no clue what you are chuckling about. Nor do I imagine myself an instructor concerning prejudice, although having grown up in Georgia I believe I do know a red neck when I see one.

If it gave you a good chuckle though I am happy at least I brightened your day.

Boldwin
ID: 120301616
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 19:51

Nerve

Ridiculous. I think that's the the first time I've been called a redneck in 54 yrs.

Further I get along fine with gays. I hate the gay activist agenda, not gays.

AirJar
ID: 351123160
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 00:14

J-Bar
ID: 59048322
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 00:45

nerve- can we extrapolate your theory out to the degree that jurisdictions that look at certain crimes in a lighter prosecuting sense should have more federal oversight to insure that the crimes are punished according to the norms of the rest of america. so if a city doesn't prosecute drug crimes to the norms of the rest of the nation then the feds should come in and clean it up and enforce stiffer penalties to make up for the light treatment. hate crimes legislation is just the latest in feel-good legislation to pander and more federal oversight into states and municipalities should not be legislated. granted there have been investigations into jurisdictions that were not doing right and those should continue and that is where are system corrects the inequities.

AirJar
ID: 351123160
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 01:55

J-Bar, you make a very interesting point in 46.

"...should have more federal oversight to insure that the crimes are punished according to the norms of the rest of america. so if a city doesn't prosecute drug crimes to the norms of the rest of the nation then the feds should come in and clean it up..."

What gives the federal gov't the right to 'come in and clean it up'? Are you saying that if a locality is not policing to the standards as other areas that the federal gov't has the 'right/responsibility' to bring them up to a certain standard? This goes against the constitution and the core fabric of this nation.

This nation is not 1 entity. It is the collective brain trust of 50 entities. This is what a lot of people have forgotten and has been diluted in history lessons taught in our schools. There were 13 colonies that voted separately to divorce themselves from England and join together for the common good. The other 37 came afterwards seeking the same.

The Senate is the only level vote as every state is awarded 2 votes. The House of Representatives is weighted to population. But they are all elected by each state’s population (or appointed by the Governor) and they are (supposed to be) there to represent their state’s interests.

Does every state have to deal with the same issues of crime, drugs, education, etc.? Yes. Are some of the ideas that Georgia has could be used in Texas? Probably…and vice versa. But does that mean that just because Georgia is doing a better job, Texas must adopt those policies? No.

But, in your statement, you are saying that just because Oregon is not doing the same effective job as Missouri is of dealing with drugs the federal government can come in, take over, and bring it up to the same ‘standard’ as Oregon????

This is imperialism and is not what this country was founded on. In fact, it is exactly what this country was escaping.

I don’t mean to get off topic but I have to respond to this method of thinking. We shouldn’t look to the centralist government for all the answers. If we do, we will lose our personal liberties and have to follow the government’s list of what they say our responsibilities have become.

This is the United States of America. Not simply ‘America’.

AirJar
ID: 351123160
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 02:02

J-Bar, my apology. I re-read your post 46 after my post 47 and realized you were responding to nerve. I missed the details.

So, the 'you' and the direction of the comment is directed at nerve and others that feel the federal gov't should step into any matter they feel they need to in order to rectify the situation.

Boldwin
ID: 120301616
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 02:28

Now, the prosecutor has to prove my guilt - Airjar

Well no, hate crime laws flip that around. If a 'most favored minority' is involved, you have to prove you weren't committing a thot crime at the time.

AirJar
ID: 351123160
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 07:52

Boldwin, that's my exact point. It assumes guilt before innocence.

Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 08:47

Aren't all crimes hate crimes?

So, a white guy hits on my girlfriend at a bar and I rough him up...that's not a hate crime (by definition) because we are both the same race. But a black guy in the same situation...it's now a 'hate crime'? I still hated the fact he was hitting on my girl but because he’s part of some protected demographic it’s now a different crime?

i believe you're incorrect in your definition.

it's not that you hated the the fact he was hitting on your girl, or hated him for doing so. it's that you hated the fact he was hitting on your girl, *and* race played a role in your violent action.

if the dude is african-american, and you punch his lights out, no hate crime.

but if he's african-american, and you punch his lights out while shouting out things like "you dumb F*cking n*gger, what the f*ck were you thinking?", well, then it's a hate crime.

Further I get along fine with gays. I hate the gay activist agenda, not gays.

"some of my best friends are gay," eh?

that sounds like something you might have heard in Montgomery in the 60s - "Oh, i don't mind if negroes ride on the bus, as long as they ride in the back."

what actually is the "gay activist agenda"? would that be the agenda that wants equality, such as the right to marry, insurance benefits for life partners, and so on?

"i don't mind gays, as long as they don't go getting married and raising children."

Pancho
ID: 47161721
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 09:13

what actually is the "gay activist agenda"? would that be the agenda that wants equality, such as the right to marry, insurance benefits for life partners, and so on?

It's the "and so on," like the threat of a lawsuit if an employer has to fire a gay employee or decides not to hire one, the threat of a lawsuit if a landlord doesn't rent to a gay couple, and other special rights afforded to groups considered minorities.

Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 09:36

It's the "and so on," like the threat of a lawsuit if an employer has to fire a gay employee or decides not to hire one, the threat of a lawsuit if a landlord doesn't rent to a gay couple, and other special rights afforded to groups considered minorities.

in our litigious society, you can get sued if the coffee you serve is too hot.

it's a myth that these laws will enable frivolous lawsuits. there are plenty of other laws that already allow that.

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 09:38

but if he's african-american, and you punch his lights out while shouting out things like "you dumb F*cking n*gger, what the f*ck were you thinking?", well, then it's a hate crime.

Oooo, I don't agree with that making something a hate crime. That is simply using inappropriate speech while being caught up in the moment. If that's the definition of a hate crime, that certainly opens up the doors for many other hate crimes.

I mean, while in a fight, haven't you ever said something just to piss the other guy off because you are pissed off? Like calling someone some variation of gay, fat, or racial epiteth? I know I have had them said to me and I know I have said them, and the typical reason is just get to a rise out of someone, not because you hate all of that type of person.

One example sticks out in my head from high school when I was playing basektball. I fouled a guy and he called me a "h*nkey b*tch," and I retorted with a comment based on his race. It led to a fight. Neither of us were really implying that we were racist or even fighting because of racial differences. We simply said what we said because we were pissed off at each other and knew that this would piss the other person off.

Pancho
ID: 47161721
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 10:58

While there is currently no federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, seventeen states do have such statutes. They are Illinois, New Jersey, New York, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Some of these states also specifically prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. There are six states where discrimination by private employers is legal, but not in public workplaces. These include Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

ENDA, as currently worded, would make it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee. An earlier motion to kill the bill by sending it back to committee was defeated by a margin of 222 to 198.

In addition, a number of cities and counties outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and employment. According to the ACLU, at least 180 municipalities have such laws.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), the lead Senate backer of ENDA in past years, issued a statement late Wednesday praising the House vote and saying he would soon introduce ENDA in the Senate. Kennedy didn’t disclose whether his version of the bill would be similar to the House version or whether he would add transgender protections, which House Democrats removed from the bill before bringing it up for a vote this week.

The New York Times reported that some Senate Republicans said ENDA would have a good chance of passing in the Senate “if properly worded.”

Even if ENDA was passed in the Senate, President George W. Bush has vowed to veto it. There is no indication that Congress has enough votes to override the veto. Some observers note that the bill’s true value is for the future. Having ENDA passed by both the House and Senate makes it more likely that the bill will be passed once Bush leaves office.

“This is truly an historic day,” said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California. “As someone who has looked forward to this day for the 20 years I have served in Congress, it is a joyous occasion.”

While calling the House action an important milestone, Pelosi joined gay Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) in expressing disappointment that the bill did not include protections for transgender workers. Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin are the only two openly gay members of Congress.

link

I have no problem with gays marrying, because that's their private business. I have no problem with gay couples adopting and raising children, because that's their private business.

However, when the government mandates that I, as an employer, must hire gays and transgenders, then it's my private business.
Where does it end? Gays don't want the government involved in their bedrooms, and that's perfectly understandable, yet they want government to allow them to bring their bedroom activity into the workplace.
Can I, as a straight male, claim discrimination if a gay owned company refuses to hire me because my sexual orientation is for the opposite sex?
We're not talking frivilous lawsuits here, we're talking government mandates that violate the rights of employers and property owners.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 12:12

Baldwin Further I get along fine with gays.

I'm stunned. All I can ever remember you writing is extremely homophobic rants. If my memory is clouded I am happy to know it.

I still say post 36 made no sense whatsoever.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 12:18

can we extrapolate your theory out to the degree that jurisdictions that look at certain crimes in a lighter prosecuting sense should have more federal oversight to insure that the crimes are punished according to the norms of the rest of america. so if a city doesn't prosecute drug crimes to the norms of the rest of the nation then the feds should come in and clean it up and enforce stiffer penalties to make up for the light treatment.

My personal opinion would be that it's absurd to make a comparison between how someone is prosecuted for committing acts of violence against another human being and someone choosing to put drugs in their own body but that is just me.

In my opinion, only the most serious and egregious situations would warrant federal government intervention.

Aside from that I am for the legalization of drugs (And clearly in Dubai I am not using them) so probably a bad comparison to hand me.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 12:28

"Hate Crimes", are not rightly defined as "Thought Crimes". In no jurisdiction I am aware of, can you/I be prosecuted for thinking "what a dumbass n****r" as one example. ACTING on that thought however, is a different thing. Battery, is a crime already. Battery driven by racism...makes it a "Hate Crime". I have no problem with there being a distinction, nor do I have a problem with the two being handled differently. MOTIVE, is an element if almost every criminal investigation/prosecution. No different here.

Perm Dude
ID: 29028188
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 12:31

Sure. But motive doesn't have its own punishment. People get punished for their actions, not their actions plus an additional punishment for having the motivation in the first place.

"Hate crimes" legislation punishes the thought that generated the crime. This is on top of the crime's penalty.

And that's wrong. Punish the crime. Let's not try to regulate motive or thoughts.

Boldwin
ID: 120301616
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 12:34

Nerve

I'm just playin with you with the redneck comment. No I don't want you unemployed like Jimmy the Greek. But really there isn't any difference between N-bombing someone and calling MBJ [or me for that matter] a redneck other than the fact that hate crime proponents don't care about the feelings of 'rednecks'. Heck, they prolly are tickled pink to cause them whatever psychic damage they can.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 12:36

IMO PD, "Hate Crimes" tries to address a social wrong. IE, crimes driven by ideals which fit under "Hate Crimes", are more agregious to society than otherwise. (Since those very thoughts when acted upon are detrimental TO society.) Thus, the legislation is beneficial and serves the "greater good". Also NCs point/contention re crimes not being punished (adequately) because of pervasive local biases, is a valid one.

Perm Dude
ID: 29028188
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 12:47

I think you are right, sarge. It does try to address a social wrong. My position is that it shouldn't, because in doing so it opens the gate to the "law of unintended consequences" (in the exact same way that speech codes do).

Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 15:15

Pancho

However, when the government mandates that I, as an employer, must hire gays and transgenders, then it's my private business. Where does it end? Gays don't want the government involved in their bedrooms, and that's perfectly understandable, yet they want government to allow them to bring their bedroom activity into the workplace. Can I, as a straight male, claim discrimination if a gay owned company refuses to hire me because my sexual orientation is for the opposite sex? We're not talking frivilous lawsuits here, we're talking government mandates that violate the rights of employers and property owners.

Your's is a common misconception. No where does it statte that a private business owner is "mandated" to hire gays or transgendered. You simply cannot have a policy that REFUSES to hire gays simply because they are gay or says that once you suspect someone is gay, they are to be fired.

Example. You could not place a want ad in the paper or on the internet that say, "Gays and Transgendered need not apply". Nor could you fire Employee X and tell him, "I saw you entering a Gay club last night with four other young men all wearing tight t-shirts and jeans. We will not tolerate that behavior."

Bigots need not fear. If you suspect that a job applicant is gay and that makes your stomach turn, don't hire him and don't say why. Likewise, if you are the spokesman for a vengeful, vindictive God who hates gays and want to fire Employee X for the reason above, fire him and don't tell him why. In this case, yeah, you might get sued and you might lose, but I bet your vengeful God would rather have you lie to his Sodomite lawyer at deposition than be stuck with this previously just fine Employee X committing sins on his own time.

Can I, as a straight male, claim discrimination if a gay owned company refuses to hire me because my sexual orientation is for the opposite sex?

If you were interviewing for a job and the boss said, "Are you gay, because we only hire gay men?" , then yes, you have a strong lawsuit. Short of that, not so strong.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 16:15

there isn't any difference between N-bombing someone and calling MBJ [or me for that matter] a redneck

Show me where I called MBJ a redneck.

And my perception has never been that you are a redneck Baldwin, just homophobic based on your religious beliefs.

I do call people rednecks though when I see them pontificating in a similiar manner.

That doesn't mean I think they are actually redneck.

Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 16:42

MOTIVE, is an element if almost every criminal investigation/prosecution

Motive is not a element of any common law crimes.

That doesn't mean I think they are actually redneck.

nerve - it's no big deal, but since you use the term so much you should look up the origination of the word "redneck" It began as a racial slur that the majoirty English gentry used to descibe Scottish immigrants whom they forced to settle outside of the early English settlements in America. Now it's often used by elitist coastal dwelling prigs to refer to all the unwashed inland masses, but the original intent seems to be similar. You know how you can "tell a redneck when you see one"; must be nice to be so omnicient that you can discern a man's heart by his flannel shirt and sun exposure. Whatever.

That's the irony of you throwing it around like you do in this context. That's what I was referring to in my post above - obviously you aren't aware of that.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 16:54

Seattle Zen-Nerveclinic online dictionary

One entry found.

redneck

Main Entry: red·neck
Pronunciation: \ˈred-ˌnek\
Function: noun
Date: 2008
1 Anyone not buying into the loopy far leftwing agenda
2 often disparaging : Anyone politically right of Ted Kennedy
— redneck also red·necked \-ˌnekt\ adjective

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 17:04

Jag I know I've seen you happily refer to yourself with that term here.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 17:09

Motive is not a element of any common law crimes.

Means, motive, opportunity. Rather difficult to get a conviction without them. (I'll stipulate that motive can be very "gray" in the case of psycopaths and the like.)

Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 17:13

Means, motive, opportunity. Rather difficult to get a conviction without them

And yet I've somehow managed to garner hundreds of convictions without ever once having to prove motive as an element of the crime. Sounds like one of doesn't know WTF we're taking about.

Motive is not an element of any common law crime.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 18:02

All I can go off, is what I experienced as an MPI. We were taught, told and required in MOST cases, to have a demonstrable motive. Lacking it, the odds of a conviction declined drqamatically. (In fact, the likelihood of a Military Prosecution declined if we couldnt demonstrate motive.) Of course there were/are exceptions. "Victimless" crimes, but then...those would never fall under the umbrella of a "Hate Crime" to begin with.

Now MBJ, of those convictions you got where motive played no roll; how many of those charges would have fallen under the realm of "Hate Crime" legislation? In crimes where the Hate Crime legislation applies, I'd still find that motive is part/parcel of the proceeding. (Even w/o the Hate Crimes tag. The nature of those types of crime, lend themselves to having been motivated by SOMETHING.)

I'll quickly concede that your knowledge of criminal/case law exceeds my own. Not trying to claim otherwise. But I'd have to disagree that motive is not an element in many, mnay crimes. It may well NOT be an element in common law. That however, doesnt make it a non-concern in multiple criminal proceedings.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 18:14

nerve - it's no big deal, but since you use the term so much you should look up the origination of the word "redneck"

why?

It began as a racial slur that the majoirty English gentry used to describe Scottish immigrants whom they forced to settle outside of the early English settlements in America.

OK

Now it's often used by elitist coastal dwelling prigs

What's a prig?

to refer to all the unwashed inland masses, but the original intent seems to be similar.

Maybe but that isn't the context I use it in, although I did grow up in the northeast until I moved to the south. Of course I've heard many born and bred southerners use the term "redneck" also.

What's with these "masses" anyway that they don't like to use soap?

You know how you can "tell a redneck when you see one"; must be nice to be so omnicient that you can discern a man's heart by his flannel shirt and sun exposure. Whatever.

Wrong context, I've owned many flannel shirts when they were fashionable and spent a summer or too tanning to the point of decadence so clearly that isn't my definition of a redneck.

I suspect you've met a few MBJ?

Some are salt of the earth and will give you the flannel shirt off his back.

Others will beat the crap out of a man simply because he is gay.

The rest fall somewhere in between.

It's the ones leaning toward the "beat the crap out of" I am talking about.

I spent much of my life in the south, and the northeast, and the west. I've met red necks in all three regions...although the southern variety is a unique breed.

Heck I was at dinner in Dubai last week with a Paki who used he word Fag and I didn't even call him on it because it was the first time I met him, was a friend of a friend and he was drunk. Next time he does it look out.

It's funny, when you call people on it they usually apologize profusely immediately.

There's "rednecks" everywhere. I think you know what I mean, and I'm not sure why you need to bring up the clever English Scottish reference in this instance.

Are you of Scottish heritage?

This is what it really comes down to, to me.

There are people in our country, who are so homophobic, that they take a man out back and beat him within an inch of his life because he is gay.

You know this.

In some places in our country, because frankly, the folk there are still a little, "in my opinion" and it's only "my opinion" a little...ohhh what's the right word, I want to get this right because I really want to offend the group of people who think this way...backwerds...maybe they think "these here boys who done this here beating ain't a bad bunch really, they just got a little worked up because this fag looked at 'em funny...boys will be boys...so why don't we jus' let em go?"

So that's really what I'm talkin' bout MBJ.

Not flannel shirts.

Not too much sun on the back of the neck.

Not being a mind reader.

Just common sense in my opinion that if we find ourselves in the exact situation I described above...it ain't right, it jus' ain't and by God something needs to be done about it.

Enter the hate crime bill...specifically for acts of violence, not speech and not thoughts.

If the problem can be solved without the hate crime bill, I'm all ears and all for it. The last thing we need are more laws.

Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 18:30

nerve - people beating up homosexuals because they are homosexuals and not being duly prosecuted is not a major problem in this country; it's certainly not a problem I' want to surrender to the Feds.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 19:32

nerve - people beating up homosexuals because they are homosexuals and not being duly prosecuted is not a major problem in this country

ok

is it a minor problem?

we might want to ask the victims

and are you sure?

I believe you when you say you sincerely believe it's not a problem.

maybe it's not...if not, no need for the hate crime bill.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 19:53

Nerve: If the problem can be solved without the hate crime bill, I'm all ears and all for it. The last thing we need are more laws.

I agree. What is wrong with existing laws protecting victims of assault?

Perm Dude
ID: 29028188
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 20:01

We can also try to not jump the gun by calling hate crimes when they are not. For example, the whole Matthew Shepard debacle, which turned out not to be a hate crime at all, just a horrible horrible violent crime committed by two drug-crazed guys trying to score some money for their next hit.

J-Bar
ID: 59048322
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 20:08

so if legislating based on your religion is bad, then why is legislating based on your sexual orientation not also bad. and it seems that almost every proponent of increased gay rights say that it won't lead to other fringe (more radical) groups but now if you read the above argument now it includes transgenders. i guess they are born to dress that way and it is genetic and not a choice of what outfit they meant to wear today.

and nerve why are you not using in dubai, your not saying that harsh penalties are a deterrent are you?

Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 21:39

J Bar

i guess they are born to dress that way and it is genetic and not a choice of what outfit they meant to wear today.

I believe you are an old timer and old timers used to talk of "Cross Dressers". Transgendered people are not cross dressers, they are people whose gender identity does not match the one they got at birth. Mock away if you want, but these are real people who do not deserve scorn.

Pancho
ID: 47161721
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 22:05

Your's is a common misconception. No where does it statte that a private business owner is "mandated" to hire gays or transgendered. You simply cannot have a policy that REFUSES to hire gays simply because they are gay or says that once you suspect someone is gay, they are to be fired.

Mine is not a misconception, per se. I understand how it works, having been a GM for a group of radio stations which are basically controlled by the government through licensing. It is not uncommon through the license renewal process for gays and transgenders(and minorities) to protest renewal based on discrimination. Sometimes the complaints are valid, as when a competent gay employee is either fired or not promoted despite exceptional work.
However, a disgruntled gay or minority employee, fired for good reason or just let go in a numbers crunch, with activists unconcerned with anything but their agenda as their allies, hold these companies hostages with threats of protesting their licenses. I had to spend two days at a management seminar dealing mostly with sexual harrassment, but also sensitivity training dealing with gays.
Two things happen as a result. First, if layoffs are made, the gays and minorities, even if not as qualified or competent, will be retained at the expense of a white male. Second, companies will avoid hiring gays for fear of the consequences if the situation doesn't work out.
This happened to blacks because of NCAA activism in many circumstances in SoCal. If a company needed minority employees , they turned to Mexicans, who worked hard and didn't make waves.

Then there's the gotcha factor. A man is hired for a job after an interview. The man shows up for work as a woman the next day. A firing occurs. So, if you knew the hiree was a transgender, you wouldn't have hired them. That's against the law. Gotcha!

Maybe I appear to be a bigot, but this is an area I don't think the government belongs, except in cases of obvious harrassment in the workplace. In a free market gays who are an asset to their companies will be retained, promoted and properly paid. If there's a case for gay discrimination in employment, one has to look no further than the military. Fully qualified gay linguists, medics as well as regular soldiers are routinely bounced from service, and some of the abuse women soldiers endure, while their claims are swept under the rug, are also more common than than we'd like to believe.

Hate Crimes

Boldwin
ID: 120301616
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 22:11

Is there such a thing as a straight cross-dresser? And if not, why do they even get their own category? Why not just lump them in with all gays? If there are straight cross-dressers who just have a fashion fetish, then SZ's comments were way off.

Perm Dude
ID: 29028188
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 22:21

Is there such a thing as a straight cross-dresser?

Yes. [And there are non-pedophile gays, too, just to get that out there. :) ]

Cross dressing isn't a prrotected class. Sexual orientation is, in many jurisdictions.

Tree
ID: 50351821
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 22:41

For example, the whole Matthew Shepard debacle, which turned out not to be a hate crime at all, just a horrible horrible violent crime committed by two drug-crazed guys trying to score some money for their next hit.

PD - that's something we'll never know. there were so many conflicting and changing stories from those involved, there's just no possible way we'll know what the truth was.

odds are - imho - that it was a combination of both. two nuts looking to score some money, and they picked Shepard because he was a small guy, and he was gay.

Boldwin
ID: 120301616
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 23:06

So I feel the need to ask SZ if he actually intends to defend the notion we are born with fetishes.

J-Bar
ID: 59048322
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 23:33

boldwin you must be an old timer, the question should have been are there straight trans-genders.
pd- they may not be yet but a couple of reps were disappointed by their lack of inclusion in the protected class or maybe i mis-read it.

AirJar
ID: 351123160
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 01:40

This type of law segments certain people because those people don't want to be discriminated against (you beat me up just because I'm gay). But, if we exclude other people from the law (white, straight, etc.), isn't that discrimination as well?

If you commit a crime against a person that is not like you, your penalty will be greater than if you committed the same crime against someone that is like you. Hell, just put everyone on the list and we don't have a problem. You commit any crime, it's the same penalty. No. Can't do that. It doesn't provide enough protection for people that are ____.

But that's the liberal's way of thinking. "We need to protect people that are ______ because there are people that ride around looking for people that are _____ just to beat them up for a thrill." There is no end to it.

It's just like the blacks that say "treat me equally and include me, don't treat me different because of the color of my skin" but then want to be referred to as an 'african-american'. Division of race through description...I think so.

Same thing with gays. "Don't treat me different" but pass laws to protect me more than you..oh, but don't treat me different.

I call Bullsh**!

Tree
ID: 59042193
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 04:46

It's just like the blacks that say "treat me equally and include me, don't treat me different because of the color of my skin" but then want to be referred to as an 'african-american'. Division of race through description...I think so.

um...wow...yea, remember the day when african-americans didn't want to be called n*ggers or negroes any more?

why the hell did they have to go and get all uppity and change things???

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 05:10

What is wrong with existing laws protecting victims of assault?

Boxman I've made this point several times in several posts.

There's nothing wrong with the existing laws if they are enforced without predjudice.

The problem is, in some instances, of being unenforced when the crime is committed against certain victim classes.

This is the explanation of the purpose for a violence related hate crime bill.

It's not a law I'm passionate about. It's not a subject I'm overly interested in, I just saw the topic and related this perspective and suddenly I am to the left of Ted Kennedy.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 05:25

Air Jar post 84.

The points you make are completely unrelated to the intention of the law.

You've completely misconstrued and misunderstand it so it's no mystery to me you would be so outraged by it.

If the intention of the law was, as you described, I would be outraged also.

Sadly, you are so confused about the intention and purpose, I don't have the energy to try and pick at the bones of your post.

No one wants "special" treatment, they simply want the exact same protection every American is entitled to.

If all the people posting against the bill believe that there is no longer an issue with prejudice against certain classes in any court jurisdiction in the country, then I completely understand why you would be against the bill.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 05:39

Jbar what is your point?

and nerve why are you not using in dubai, your not saying that harsh penalties are a deterrent are you?

Among other things my age and common sense are a deterrent but yes of course the draconian laws here are a deterrent to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

My friend knows someone who was walking through the Saudi Arabian airport with a duty free bag, in transit. He wasn't coming into the country just changing planes.

He was openly carrying the duty free bag because it didn't occur to him that it was illegal. He was caught and sentenced to a year in jail.

That's a harsh penalty. It would deter me from carrying a duty free bag in the airport in Saudi Arabia. Does that make it right J Bar?

What's your point?

In some parts of Pakistan, to this day, if you are caught having sex out of wed lock you are stoned to death in the public square. That's a harsh penalty, it's a deterrent, but is it right J Bar?

If you are caught with even a single joint in Dubai it's an automatic 4 year jail sentence so of course anyone with half a brain isn't smoking here.

Is that the kind of country you would like America to become?

What's your point?

You can always make a law that is so unjust, and so unfitting the severity of the crime, that it will be a deterrent.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 08:48

Here's a scenario from left field that perhaps could be described as a hate crime. I'm doing this just to show the insanity of hate crime legislation in my opinion. I'd like to get your opinion on this.

Example: Obama is the Democrat nomineee and Romney is the Republican nominee.

Bigoted White Guy does not vote for Obama because he's black. Enough of them do this and Obama loses the race and Romney becomes President.

Bigoted Black Guy does not vote for Romney because he's white or a Mormon. Enough of them do this and Romney loses the race and Obama becomes President.

In either scenario, someone is denied employment because of bigotry, a hate crime. If we knew the names of people who voted against someone because they are black or white and the end result is a denial of employment, are they guilty of a hate crime?

CanadianHack
ID: 21937272
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 09:00

Boxman

NO. And I doubt you are dumb enough to have needed to ask.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 09:03

And the Gold Medal goes to CanadianHack for being the first to not recognize the preamble qualifier, "a scenario from left field".

Normally these awards go to the likes of Zen, Tree, Sarge and Mith: The Home Gamers. They may be asleep though so I think you had a competitive advantage. :)

bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 11:02

Air Jar #84 If you commit a crime against a person that is not like you, your penalty will be greater than if you committed the same crime against someone that is like you.

So many here have the same misperception. A person is not prosecuted for a hate crime because he/she has committed a crime against a person who "is not like you", or of a different race or sexual preference. Said person may be prosecuted IF the REASON he/she committed the crime was motivated by the difference.

A white attacks a black because of a squabble over a girlfriend, he may be prosecuted for the assault, not for a hate crime. If the same white is just pissed off at blacks for whatever reason (maybe he lost a girlfriend to a black, maybe he hates blacks, whatever), and commits the same degree of assault against a random black BECAUSE the person was black, he may face the enhancement of a hate crime being added on to the assault charge.

Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 12:24

In either scenario, someone is denied employment because of bigotry, a hate crime. If we knew the names of people who voted against someone because they are black or white and the end result is a denial of employment, are they guilty of a hate crime?

Easily the worst argument in this thread. That's not from left field, that's just pathetic.

I am totally opposed to hate crime legislation. My argument is that it is not necessary. Your example: Voting for someone is a hate crime against his or her opponents has set back this forum and arguments in general 100 years.

Baldwin

Is there such a thing as a straight cross-dresser?

Who cares? For the purposes of this thread, it's irrelevant that most cross-dressers are straight. No one, no where has argued that men who wear women's clothes are a class of people who need or want a protected status.

J-Bar
ID: 400161911
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 12:40

nerve- the point was that many on these boards have over and over stated that the death penalty is not a deterrent but your eloquent post seems to state the other side of the argument. thanks

and as far your point that the crimes are not punished the same in all jurisdictions and should carry mandated federal sentences based on a protected class seems to be draconian and not an america that i want to live in. just as pv has said once the legal ease is in place then the mere appearance has to be defended and as many have stated 'the thought police are activated' and you are proving innocence instead of them proving guilt.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 13:09

J-Bar...reread post 92. "Thought Police", exist in this discussion only because certain extremists want to paint an innaccurate portrait of fear for those whose minds have yet to be set on this topic. You apparently, are amongst those fear-mongering persons.

Perm Dude
ID: 29028188
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 13:34

It is hard to argue that punishing thoughts separate (or in addition to) actions is anything other than exactly that, however.

It isn't extremist to believe that hate crime legislation has no place in an open and democratic society. And it isn't extremist to point out how such legislation actually works.

If you want to change behavior, there are so many more effective ways than trading in some rights for a false sense that everyone will now get along because the federal government says so.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 14:03

Except PD, most prejudices are "taught". Kids by nature, are not racist. (At 3 or 4, anothr kid is just that...another kid.) The racial prejudice is learned, from listening/watching Mom and Dad for ex. This kind of legislation, I think seeks to turn adults away from choosing to act this way, thus reducing the tendency for kids to learn to act that way. (Over simplified, but we're starting to see some action at work.)

Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 14:24

Except what? That's no rebuttal.

There are far better ways to reach the goals (once, of course, we agree on them) than telling people it is now against the law.

J-Bar
ID: 400161911
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 14:44

no fear mongering here sarge only stating what has already been shown. that once the race or gender or gay or whatever card is played, guilt is presumed as opposed to innocence. this is the flaw in the giving of perceived power. another example of this is the now media publicized child abuse problem and children now stating to their parents (which i have personally heard at my office) if you spank me i'll call the cops. the crime is the crime and this added pandering is just that.

100

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 15:29

Does intent (motive) not enter into certain criminal prosecutions? Assault with INTENT for ex? Hate Crimes legislation is no different. It calls for us to look at the INTENT of the offender, and punish upon conviction accordingly.

101

Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 15:36

sarge, I see your problem. - Iintent is not the same thing as motive; you're wrong in conflting the two.

intent to assault means I meant to strike the victim. My motive may have been because he was chinese.

Not uncommon for people to confuse the two ideas.

Criminal intent (mens rea) is a an element for many crimes. Motive is not an element for any crimes that are commmonly or traditionally prosecuted.

102

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 15:47

Clearly MBJ, a legal distinction exists. But for purposes of "Hate Crimes" legislation, there isnt much if any practical difference. Those investigating and prosecuting, are called upon to examine the driving force behind the crime.

I was referring in the above to "intent to inflict" sort of thing. I'd have assumed in most cases, assault if prosecuted, is a case wherein the defendant intended to hit his target/victim. (Auto accidents and such not withstanding. But then, we are predominantly referring to physical assaults with fists/bats and the like, as per the various scenarios put forth by NCs examples. Fatal Assaults not being deliberately discounted however.)

103

Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 16:01

But for purposes of "Hate Crimes" legislation, there isnt much if any practical difference

There's a huge difference between prosecuting someone for intending the consequence of there actions and prosecuting someone's motive. World shaking difference.

104

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 16:06

Therein lies the rub MBJ. I think that those of us in support of such legislation, just dont see any such difference.

If I assault a man because he is Black or Jewish or Gay, and that is the sole reason and purpose I targetted that individual. Then my INTENT, my MOTIVE; are one in the same. To inflict injury upon an individual who is part of a group for which I hold personal disdain and of which I'd prefer didnt exist.

Would I have attacked that person, at that time and under those identical circumstances were he White, Catholic or Straight? If the answer is no; then the Hate Crime tag should be applied.

105

Perm Dude
ID: 29028188
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 16:09

No, the crime tag should be applied. That's it.

106

Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 16:16

I think that those of us in support of such legislation, just dont see any such difference.

I don't know how to respond to this problem without being insulting.

If I assault a man because he is Black or Jewish or Gay, and that is the sole reason and purpose I targetted that individual. Then my INTENT, my MOTIVE; are one in the same. To inflict injury upon an individual who is part of a group for which I hold personal disdain and of which I'd prefer didnt exist.

No. Your intent was to unlawfully strike another person causing a substantial physical injury. That's it. That's the element of intent needed to prove assault.

Your motivation of not liking some perceived characteristic of the victim has nothing to do with proving intent.

If you can understand the difference, I can't help you.

107

J-Bar
ID: 400161911
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 19:55

well said pd 105

108

bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Sun, Jan 20, 2008, 15:40

Just as most would agree that merely having hateful thoughts should not be against any laws, most (especially on the right) feel that it is the right of citizens to be armed.

A comparison can then be made with hate crimes enhancements and armed enhancements. If a suspect is armed while dealing drugs, or committing a house burglary, he will face an armed allegation enhancement which might add on to his sentence considerably. Is this fair?

Both are situations where lawmakers have attempted to punish suspects for something other than the basic act they are being prosecuted for.

109

Jag
ID: 360261522
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 02:02

More and more I am starting to see radical Liberalism as a religion and in this case, gays are like a sacred cow.

110

J-Bar
ID: 40082021
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 09:00

jag you can't just say gays, the new buzzwords are gays and trans-genders. you have to use those together in all writings so that the terms and the lifestyles will become more readily acceptable. shame on you.

111

Boldwin
ID: 1055190
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 10:05

And you can't say just Aids or just HIV, it's got to be HIV-Aids, to show solidarity with the virus I guess.

112

Tree, in L.A.
ID: 33052019
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 16:28

More and more I am starting to see radical Liberalism as a religion and in this case, gays are like a sacred cow.

What the f*ck are you talking about?

jag you can't just say gays, the new buzzwords are gays and trans-genders.

What the f*ck are you talking about?

And you can't say just Aids or just HIV, it's got to be HIV-Aids

What the f*ck are you talking about?

that is an impressive display of consecutive, completely wrong, completely hate-filled, and way out of left field posts.

i'd tell you what is wrong with each of them, but i think the ignorance in all three of you is so deeply ingrained in your soul, to quote Hollywood Henderson, i don't think you could spell CAT if i spotted you the C and the A, and i sure don't think you could understand what is wrong with your posts, even in just the facts alone.

113

J-Bar
ID: 40082021
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 18:48

tree tree tree tree tree maybe you should go back to post 55 and read and then please explain to me how my post was hate-filled or is it your own blindness and bias that is showing

114

bibA
ID: 53022118
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 19:10

Actually, I can't see this as a political issue. Has it traditionally been liberals and Democrats who have called for stiffer penalties? Maybe, and maybe not, but my perception has been that conservatives and Republicans have usually been the most pleased with harsher sentences for law breakers. Reading these boards would make one think that the right is leaning towards being soft on some crimes, and the liberals are okay with longer prison terms, at least for certain crimes.

115

Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 19:53

make one think that the right is leaning towards being soft on some crimes

Which crimes? The ones commited by acts or by thoughts?

116

Jag
ID: 360261522
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 19:59

Excuse me, I am looking for the Guru political forum, this can't be it, because there are 4 posters on this thread, who don't own a Hilary Fathead.

117

J-Bar
ID: 40082021
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 21:31

lmao jag

118

AirJar
ID: 351123160
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 00:29

Here's a link to a story that illustrates what we are discussing. The cops have arrested him under a 'hate crime' statute and investigating whether he 'intended' to do something because of 'hate'.

Bombs Meant for Hate Crimes?

Here's my point. If, in fact, he did deface the cars and the building...there's already a penalty for that. Why attach a stiffer penalty? He had pipe bombs. He if intended on using these, there is already a penalty. Why attach a stiffer penalty? The guy is being held on a $300,000 bond for graffiti because the graffiti was anti-Semitic. Hell, every gang-banger is guilty of graffiti...when was the last time one of them was held for $300K?

I AM NOT defending this guy but the cops are bringing additional charges because they think he was thinking a certain thing and that's what provoked his actions. Why can't they just say "hey, you wanted to blow something up." No. Now it's "you wanted to blow something up because...."

It doesn't say what race or economic status the guy is but let's assume he's white, Christian and working class. If he were to blow up a Jewish synagogue it's a 'hate crime' but if he were to blow up a Catholic church...that's not a hate crime? Why?

Again, goes back to my earlier post about all crimes being hate crimes. "Oh, you blew up a building made for people that are different than you, we can charge you with this and...this...also." "Oh, you blew up a building for people like you, we'll charge you with ...only this...because we can't charge you with the other thing."

I'm awaiting the posts twisting my words...

120

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 06:16

I'm awaiting the posts twisting my words...

Can we also take odds on the first person to call you a bigot? The liberals just love to submit themselves to the emotion of outrage, but not at the expense of self loathing.

121

AirJar
ID: 351123160
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 08:07

Well Boxman, they are better than everyone because they care more about the poor plight of segments of people that can't defend themselves. [wink]

"Oh, you don't want them to have a separate law that protects them more than you. You must be a bigot!"

122

Boldwin
ID: 1055190
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 10:49

Tree can't understand what anyone is saying but hey, he can spell cat. Nothing changes.

123

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 16:16

It doesn't say what race or economic status the guy is but let's assume he's white, Christian and working class. If he were to blow up a Jewish synagogue it's a 'hate crime' but if he were to blow up a Catholic church...that's not a hate crime? Why?

Just for the fun of it.

If he were a far right, radical even Christian, the "Catholics are really the anti christ" type Christian, and was blowing up a Catholic church for that reason...

Yes that would be a hate crime.

But I only answered for mild entertainment, not because I am interested in this thread anymore.

I'll take it a step further. If he was black, and he blew up a synagogue because he believed all Jews are evil, that would also be a hate crime.

Again going back to my perspective, the only reason the "hate crime law" would need to be invoked, is if a jurisdiction downplayed the crime and failed to prosecute properly.

As MBJ has told us though, in America, (And I admit, I wasn't aware of this) all criminals are treated completely equally so this would never happen.

Therefore, I no longer have a reason to defend the hate crime bill position in this thread, because everyone is treated completely equally in the American court system, as all the cons on the board are aware.

124

AirJar
ID: 351123160
Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 21:51

nerve: Again going back to my perspective, the only reason the "hate crime law" would need to be invoked, is if a jurisdiction downplayed the crime and failed to prosecute properly.

So we should look to the federal gov't to protect us?

If we don't like how our local gov't is handling a law we elect new people the govern the will of the people. If you want to jump straight to DC for solutions...well, that's a slippery slope we have already started down.

125

AirJar
ID: 351123160
Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 21:52

whoops..."new people the govern" should be:

new people to govern

126

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 14:58

Complete text of S.909: The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Have at it, Boldylocks.

127

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sun, Nov 01, 2009, 06:27

Also known as the pedophile protection act.

It's not about equality. It's not about hate. It's about forcing society to approve of every sort of immorality and deviancy.

It's about outlawing a decent society.

128

bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Sun, Nov 01, 2009, 09:45

So lemme get this straight. A loon shoots up a synagogue because he hates Jews, and is subsequently arrested and prosecuted for the shooting itself. When a hate crime enhancement is added to the charges, the prosecution is now reflecting our approval of every sort of immoral deviancy.

129

mith
ID: 591028110
Sun, Nov 01, 2009, 11:29

I was hoping for an explanation of how this criminalizes bible readings.

130

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 12:06

The Bible is against immoral behavior such as but by no means limited to homosexuality. Or hadn't you heard? But now absolutely any deviancy whatsoever can claim privileged legal status.

131

CanadianHack
ID: 19856214
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 12:22

The Bible is pro immoral behavior. For example, flooding and killing every human on earth (save for one family) and every animal on earth (save for a couple of each species) is lauded as a good thing to do.

One (of many) problems with Baldwin is that her doesn't have a moral compass at all. he just blindly accepts whatever his Bible, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or any of his other idols tell him to - especially if it makes liberals or Obama look badly. He has no moral compass of his own and the moral compasses he claims to use are in favor of the killing of millions of people, plants and animals. That is the height of immorality.

132

WiddleAvi
ID: 895017
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 12:41

Exactly CH - When it was time for the Jews to claim Israel they just went to war with whoever was there at the time. There are countless wars in the bible all with 'god's support'.

133

Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 12:44

#130: Are you going to point out to the language in the hate crimes bill that criminalizes bible readings or not? As far as I can tell, you still have to actually commit an act of violence in order to be guilty of a hate crime. So unless you go to a church where it's followed by sacrificing homosexuals at the altar, your Leviticus readings are still in compliance with the law.

#131: Your post lives up to your name. The New Testament significantly changes the context of the Old Testament.

134

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 16:26

What a strawman Hack invents in order to tar me.

As well as calling God immoral. Wow, the kind of famous last words the Godless make so blythely.

I don't adjust my moral compass according to anything other than the Bible.

Widdle

God had given those countries in the promised land 400 years to demonstrate that they were bad beyond redemtion. He had judged and sentenced them and given their land away to another people. And he had judged them, in large part because they were so immoral that they killed their inconvenient children so as to be free to commit more immorality. Has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

MITH

1) The bill goes farther than making deviants' lives more valuable than anyone else's...

With the advent of the federal hate crimes law, the concept of equal justice is no longer a reality in the United States.
More alarming than the special status the government now accords certain segments of society is a provision in the law that allows for the prosecution of those who appear to "incite" or provide motivation for a hate crime.
An individual can be held liable for a hate crime even if his "exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another."
When the language in the hate crime bill is coupled with the provision in another federal statute, the results are sobering.
The federal aiding and abetting law states that an individual is liable for a federal crime even if they do not physically perform it, so as long as they "induce," counsel, aid or abet it. "Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal," the law says.
The provision in the new legislation along with that of existing federal law makes clear that the bill is intended to squelch opposition to homosexuality and similar behaviors.
According to the provisions in the new hate crimes law, if a person attended a church service and heard a sermon from the Book of Romans condemning homosexual behavior as sinful, and subsequently assaulted a person that was homosexual, the preacher could be charged with inciting, inducing or abetting a hate crime.
If you think that scenario is farfetched, you need only to take a look at Canada, Great Britain or Europe to see the effects hate crimes legislation has had on those who believe homosexual behavior is immoral. Fines and jail time have been levied on those who have dared transgress the law.
One other aspect of the new hate crimes legislation makes the intent of the law suspicious. Why was it hidden away in a defense appropriation bill? If the legislation is so meritorious and good for America, why not let it stand alone?
The hate crimes law is nothing more than a stick that will be used to beat into silence those who believe homosexual behavior is wrong.

And if you think there isn't room for mischief ask yourself if Rush Limbaugh hasn't already been accused without basis in fact for Matthew Shepherd's death. Ask yourself how eagerly gay activists will be to throw a net of accusations and legal jeapardy over as many people as they can.

2) Considering that story of Sodom and Gomorrah provides context to all the other scriptural condemnations of homosexuality leaves no wiggle room for controversy over God's feelings on the matter.

135

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 16:38

More context...

...and by reducing the cities Sod´om and Go·mor´rah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come. - 2 Peter 2:6

136

DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 16:38

"And if you think there isn't room for mischief ask yourself if Rush Limbaugh hasn't already been accused without basis in fact for Matthew Shepherd's death."

I must have missed the arrest and trial. Or are you trying to conflate gibbering in the media with actual crimes? Because, try as you might to make them one and the same, they aren't even close and you know it.

137

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 16:45

I must have missed the arrest and trial.

What you missed was that this 'hate' crime legislation wasn't in place at the time.

Application of PC 'justice', and kangaroo trials are capricious. They will pick their targets and push it as far as they can get away with given the state of the cultural decline as it exists at any given time.

138

Mith
ID: 43914286
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 19:14

An individual can be held liable for a hate crime even if his "exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.

That the Baptist Press News publishes this sentence does not make it so, as much as you obviously wish it were true. I swear I've never met someone who so pines for victimhood as you do.

Your reliance on these ridiculously distorted extrapolations is the primary reason those two doorknobs are the only forum allies you can get to stick around. Why would anyone with half a brain want to be in the position of having to so regularly choose between crossing his only conservative ally and supporting such utter nonsense?

139

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 20:23

It's already happened in Canada and it's coming here. Prosecution merely for stating what the Bible says.

140

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 20:36

Canadian citizens doesn't enjoy the same rights as US citizens--believe it or not, they are considered by most to be a separate country with separate laws. It is silly and unserious to imply otherwise.

141

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 20:48

For a would-be mayor you are remarkably non-serious.

I of course implied no such thing. Liberals and gay activists are seeking to criminalize Christian speech.

142

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 23:01

Alert to sane people: the beast has been uncaged.

143

Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 00:08

Liberals and gay activists are seeking to criminalize Christian speech.

if we're talking about reality, then no. if we're talking about the crazy things your mind comes up with, then yes, most likely.

144

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 04:12

Canada fines people thousands of dollars for putting Bible verses on billboards. Students get suspended for wearing what they think of homosexuality on their t-shirts. Employees get fired for uttering the mildest disagreements after a gay digs and digs his oppinion out of him.

We all know where Obama, Barney Frank and the wise Latina are on this issue.

We all know how far queer activists would be willing to push this.

What exactly do any of you feel is far-fetched about expecting liberals to do what they do?

You think the first amendment really means anything to them? That was already killed with this bill.

145

Mith
ID: 43914286
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 07:00

It's already happened in Canada and it's coming here. Prosecution merely for stating what the Bible says.

No.

Hate crime laws which were explicitly written to require an act of violence to apply were not used to incarcerate nonviolent bible readings in Canada.

Canada's Human Rights Act explicitly criminalizes discrimination, which is judged and tried by something called the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act states that it is discriminatory to communicate by phone or Internet any material "that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." This is obviously very different language from what is in The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act and it is housed in a much different legal structure to boot.

So again, no, ridiculously distorted extrapolation you pasted into #134 has *not* already happened in Canada. Sorry, Boldy, you'll have to get your victimology fix someplace else. Best of luck to you.

146

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 08:41

And when it's applied the very same, what will you say?

Just for the sake of argument...*roll*...as if it wasn't going to be.

147

Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 08:55

And when it's applied the very same, what will you say?

the problem with nearly every single one of your arguments is that they are hyperbole, only you intend for them to be taking literally.

very little of what you say is based on any sort of reality IN THIS COUNTRY, and its rules and laws. you take what happens in other places - be it another nation, the bible, or your mind - and apply it as if it is the gold standard and will be applied equally here in the US, disregarding the implausibility of it all.

148

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 09:51

It's not improbable, you think it's a great idea, you expect it to happen, you will offer no apology when it does happen to those you called crazy for predicting it, and you are predictably dishonest and disingenuous.

149

Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 10:14

It's not improbable,

it is highly improbable.

you think it's a great idea,

i never said that, and furthermore, i think it's a terrible idea.

not the first time you've put words into my mouth and presumed to know what i think...so i realize that it's falling on your deaf ears, but if you're going to attempt to state my position on something with another of your lies, i need to refute that for the lurkers in these parts.

you expect it to happen,

i've said several times i can't even imagine it happening - you're the one with expectations here.

you will offer no apology when it does happen to those you called crazy for predicting it,

actually, those people would get a huge mea culpa from me. and, if our country went in that direction - which is quite Rovian and Cheney-like in base and design - i would fight it tooth and nail.

and you are predictably dishonest and disingenuous.

whatever. no one on this board is more dishonest, and disingenuous than you. i've stated my position - your ignorance and/or hubris refuses you to allow me to think for myself, nor for you to accept my position on the matter.

150

biliruben's lawyer..
Dude
ID: 014826271
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 12:10

the problem with nearly every single one of your arguments is that they are hyperbole, only you intend for them to be taking literally.

Baldwin plaeasethink about that true statement - even though tree sasid it.

Having read this Act - i can't see that it does anything, really, aside from give some local law enforecement an avenue to fight for some federal dollars. This bill is purely window dressing - unless, as I suppose Baldwin would assert, it is setting the table for more penicious legislation down the rode.

151

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 12:16

Except of course that only when actively seeking out monsters under the bed can we even begin to contemplate what pernicious legislation might conceivably come down the road.

Then that legislation would actually have to be passed.

Then it would actually have to be enforced.

Then it would actually have to be found constitutional (yes, gasp, checks and balances and all that).

Then it would have to not endure such a public backlaash that the perpetrators of said hypothetical legislation wouldn't end up on the wrong end of the sword they crafted.

Rather than deal with about five increasingly ludicrous if/then statements, I'd really rather just deal with the reality of what we have in front of us. Because if we get to construct arguments based on multiple degrees of what could theoretically possibly happen, then there really isn't any point--we can just draw up whichever goofball fantasy world we want. (As clearly demonstrated in this thread.)

152

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 05:05

Liberal activist judges tried to ram gay marriage down an unwilling public's throats when it wasn't even law. It's been defeated at the ballot 31-0. But that hasn't stopped numerous activist courts from trying to impose it.

Give those courts this legislation and the army of drama queens the gay activist lobby will bring before the court and you are sure to be eating those words...or pretending you don't have to against all evidence to the contrary.

153

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 05:16

Dwet

Then that legislation would actually have to be passed.

They are going to pass the defense appropriation bill. There is a reason they tacked it as a rider onto the most garanteed to pass bill on the planet. Not even Obama dares to defund the military in wartime.

Then it would actually have to be enforced.

Tell it to the Philidelphia police who already act as if it were law.

Then it would actually have to be found constitutional (yes, gasp, checks and balances and all that).

What's the balance of power since the wise latina was installed?

Then it would have to not endure such a public backlaash that the perpetrators of said hypothetical legislation wouldn't end up on the wrong end of the sword they crafted.

What language was that in?

Exactly how do you even backlash against that? That law makes protest against itself illegal. Act Up would be out there provoking a fight and dragging in the protesters before a court the very first protest march.

154

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 10:59

Bol,

Cocaine's a helluva drug, apparently.

You do make one good point though (mark it down folks: November 5, 2009, 10:00 Central time!!!!)--this sort of thing really shouldn't be tacked onto a defense appropriations bill. It ought to stand on its own merits.

As should countless other things that get snuck into appropriations bills, of course. As long as your outrage about this process isn't selective, I'm genuinely applauding you.

The rest of your comments are pretty LOL-worthy, but you hit the mark there. Congratulations.

155

Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 13:46

As long as your outrage about this process isn't selective

laugh

156

DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 14:33

Hey, I'm tryin' to be nice here.

157

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 15:53

A little faint praise, a little inappropriate laughter, and your compadres on the left will pretend to not notice that your post was totally Fisked.

158

Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 16:01

Not even Obama dares to defund the military in wartime

Your assumptions are showing here...Obama isn't interested in defunding the military in wartime.

Years from now, your views on gay marriage will be looked at the same way we look back on those against interracial marriage. Yeah, in the 1950's if people had tried to put up for a vote whether blacks and whites can marry they would have been defeated all over the place as well.

You are a master cherry picker. When something goes your way at the poll you point to it being some sort of mandate. When it doesn't, you turn into a victimologist.

159

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 16:12

Technically as soon as the defense appropriation bill passes it will be illegal to say anything derogotory about a coprophiliac and his...

160

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 16:13

Whew...caught myself just in time. I don't know if the defense appropriation bill has been passed.

161

Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 16:20

A little faint praise, a little inappropriate laughter, and your compadres on the left will pretend to not notice that your post was totally Fisked.

more unintentional comedy from the guy who won't meet the challenges proposed to him, who backs down from challenges he makes himself, who spreads lies about those he claims to know, who tells others how they think, and so on, and so forth.

your posts are rich, because with them, i know i'm good for several laughs a day.

162

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 22:35

You were about as close to Carlton Fisk (or, for that matter, Alfonso Ribiero a.k.a Carlton on the Fresh Prince of Bel Air) as you were to saying anything meaningful there, B.

Forum: polPage 2895Subject: Hate crimes bill

Forum: pol
Page 2895
Subject: Hate crimes bill